About that Ricci Decision…

I’m know I’m just catching up on the decision in the Ricci v. DeStefano case.  But New Haven has a special place in my heart and I have to weigh in…however late.

Carmen at AOL Black Voices and All About Race doesn’t trust that the city’s decision to throw out the tests was altruistic, and I feel her on that.  I’m no huge fan of the DeStefano-led political machine.  I think that like most (all?) political apparatuses, the City of New Haven must be made accountable to poor folk and folk of color.  Those structures won’t manifest altruism just because they should. But she goes on to conclude that throwing out the tests was therefore unfair, and on that I definitely disagree.

Victor Goode’s post at Racewire makes all the sense in the world to me, as the problem lies with the burden of proof for civil rights cases brought under Title VII from here on out.  Winning the “disparate impact” language was a big deal for folks who need to slug out their rights through litigation, and seems especially important as “colorblind” racism has it’s day.  Let’s face it.  To the powers that would keep you down, point-blank, bald-faced discrimination comes off as old-fashioned and clumsy when there’s that trusty institutionalized racism to do the dirty work.  And if the tool is a test whose questions are out of date or subtly infused with cultural assumptions of white and black worth, then there’s plausible deniability to boot.  In this context, the ability to fight back on the bases of an employment policy’s disparate impact–without having to prove invidious intent–is obviously necessary.  What the Ricci v. DeStefano decision seems to do is make it more difficult to prove that disparate impact exists.

I’ll admit I only took one law school class, but it sounds like an “L” for racial justice to me. Definitely looking forward to reading the full Ginsberg’s dissent, and wishing that the rest of the Court had listened.